[cva66snipe]

It doesn't remove, deface, or change one atom of the wilderness thus is not an exploitation. The land suffered no harm thus no compensation should be justified nor licensing. Exploiting for gain would be mining, removing plants, trees, minerals, etc and selling same. A photograph is not a mineral from a wilderness nor any element of it. It is a captured image.

Wanna bet one of the high dollar control freak whack groups has "Special Prints" for their high administration cost NPO they are selling as fundraisers and fear their pictures may loose value.

[a fool in paradise]

It doesn't remove, deface, or change one atom of the wilderness thus is not an exploitation.

To a reasonable person, yes. But to anticapitalists (and the sort who would Barry-cade public monuments out of spite), "exploitation" would include profiting off of the imagery of (same with those who trademark a likeness and go after Elvis or Marilyn Monroe impersonators, both long dead).